Air 6000 for ADF

[cherry]

With the selection of the JSF for the next generation fighter for the ADF virtually inevitable some time next year, it is probably worth debating how many of these aircraft we should purchase and what other type of aircraft should be complementing it. According to the DCP 2004 there is $15.5B allocated to this project (all phases added up). And according to defence minister Hill at the 2005 Avalon airshow, the absolute maximum budget for the JSF purchase is $12B. This would incorporate the budget allocated to phases 1 and 2. This then means that RAAF are looking at another type of aircraft for phase 3 of this project, possibly UCAV?

Firstly, it it a strong possibility that only approx. 70 JSF will be purchased through phases 1 and 2. If this is so then would it be appropriate to purchase at least one squadron of VSTOL JSF to operate from our new amphibious ships? Even though the aircraft has less range, can pull less G's, and carry less munitions, it would still be a very valuable asset to have at sea.

In terms of aircraft type for phase 3 of the project, would either UCAV X-45C or X-47 be an appropriate aircraft for this stage? Or another option would be to use this $3B on fitting out our new destroyers with Tomahawk or some other equivalent as well as our JSF to extend our strike capability?

Again, just trying to stir some debate.

 

[daisy_cutter]

Actually I think that it would depend on the regional circumstances, but I can't see a need for more than two active squadrons of JSF to keep the capability and for expeditionary operations. Assuming JSF unit cost is $US50 million in today's dollars, thats a total cost of around $A 6.7 billion. That leaves you with about $A 9 billion for other aquisitions.

IMO the best use of this money would be on ASW. Capable SSKs are proliferating throughout the region, and China will be looking to improve that area as a good investment for its purposes. Its been rather out of fashion and neglected, but I think ASW will become very important. Given that the RAN will likely have only the 3 AAW DDGs capable of ASW, I think this is a clear area where more needs to be invested.

It would be useful not only for any coalition operations in Asia, but also to protect our own SLOC.

Escorts would be good, and also we will see how good the new MMA is, and any UAVs developed for this role.

EDIT: I forgot to add - I don't think it would be a good use of space and supplies aboard the LHDs to fly F/A-35Bs.

 

[Aussie Digger]

If the JSF is chose and unfortunately it looks increasingly likely that it will. About 100 JSF's will be acquired if Air Chief marshall Angus Houston (Chief of the RAAF) has anything to say about it. He has written publicly on the RAAF's force structure requirements when preparing a paper for the Australian Strategic Policy Institute. (Known as: JSF is it good enough?)

He states unequivocally that to provide sufficient aircraft for the defence of Australia and also for expeditionary forces, the RAAF will require a minimum of 4 operational fighter squadrons, plus an operational conversion unit and attrition, research and development aircraft.

With Australia intending to maintain the NATO standard squadron size of 20 aircraft per squadron, an OCU with about 10 aircraft, you are already looking at 90 aircraft. On top of that, you have to budget for attrition and you need to have aircraft for research and development (including weapons and equipment integration, maintenance development techniques etc).

AS to ASW warfare, our current AP-3C's are provided excellent service in that field (though the damn Brits just won Fincastle back!!!). In addition long range maritime (and land) surveillance UAV's have been budgeted for (over $1 Billion already for either Global Hawk or Predator: Mariner), plus we WILL acquire the MMA when available and funding has been specifically set aside for that capability. On top of this our Naval ASW helo's are very capable and should remain so with planned block upgrades through to their retirement.

I think that IF the JSF is acquired we would be mad NOT to acquire at least 1 Squadron of the STOVL version. These aircraft could deploy on our Amphibious ships when required (indeed the Spanish IZAR design is specifically designed to incorporate a permanent mix of helo's and STOVL aircraft with no loss of capability compared to the French design) and would provide excellent capabilities in Defence of Australia scenarios with their "rough field" take off and landing capabilities, ie: they don't need normal runways.

I'm not convinced the JSF is the best way to provide the sole air combat capability for the RAAF, but am convinced that if it is acquired, at least some should be the STOVL variant. Even the USAF has recently changed it's mind on this and will acquire some STOVL aircraft...

I seriously doubt the RAN would ever get Tomahawk, short of us being already involved in a major war. Our regional neighbours would cry "bloody murder". They have already done this with our announcement of us acquiring stand-off weapons for the F-18's and AP-3C Orions and arguably present much less threat.

I CAN see however the RAN getting the "mooted" ship launched variant of the JASSM. The JASSM is likely to be chosen for the RAAF (it was already chosen the 1st time round before the project was canned and then restarted) and using it on RAN warships, (giving them a 300 Klm precision land strike capability in the process), would be far more palatable (not to mention cheap) scenario for our criticism shy Politicians.
Any thoughts re: this? Anyone?

 

[daisy_cutter]

He states unequivocally that to provide sufficient aircraft for the defence of Australia and also for expeditionary forces, the RAAF will require a minimum of 4 operational fighter squadrons, plus an operational conversion unit and attrition, research and development aircraft.

It depends on how things play out, but I would have thought that at most three squadrons would satisfy our requirements. The JSF is a multirole aircraft so we should not need separate air superiority and strike squadrons. IMO it is likely that our relationship with Indonesia will grow closer, and I also don't think the TNI-AU will be threatening, especially in light of better relations. I have a better opinion of how the JSF should turn out, and also taking into account the early warning systems and tanking we are setting up, I think two squadrons would be sufficient for our defence, but we'll see how the strategic situation unfolds.

In addition long range maritime (and land) surveillance UAV's have been budgeted for (over $1 Billion already for either Global Hawk or Predator: Mariner), plus we WILL acquire the MMA when available and funding has been specifically set aside for that capability. On top of this our Naval ASW helo's are very capable and should remain so with planned block upgrades through to their retirement.

Yes but the UAV's you mentioned are of little value to ASW. I didn't know we had signed up for the MMA, I must have missed that. The Anzacs are severely deficient in ASW capabilities, and their design hampers any improvements.

I think that IF the JSF is acquired we would be mad NOT to acquire at least 1 Squadron of the STOVL version. These aircraft could deploy on our Amphibious ships when required (indeed the Spanish IZAR design is specifically designed to incorporate a permanent mix of helo's and STOVL aircraft with no loss of capability compared to the French design) and would provide excellent capabilities in Defence of Australia scenarios with their "rough field" take off and landing capabilities, ie: they don't need normal runways.

Considering the shortages in other areas, such as Army and ASW in the RAN, I think the money could be better spent. Izar's SPS is designed to operate as a carrier when their sole carrier is in dock. It is not intended carry both helicopters and STOVL jets on amphibious missions, being 27 tons as opposed to the ~40 kton Tarawa and Wasp class ships.

 

[Aussie Digger]

We haven't yet signed a contract for the MMA, but probably the next best thing has been accomplished. Mony has been dedicated to the replace or refurbishment of our AP-3C Orions when they reach their life of type, in 2015.



Funding has also been specifically dedicated to acquiring the Globalhawk (or Mariner) as well. You're right about the UAV's lack of utility in ASW. I was confusing that acronym with anti-surface warfare back there.



The reason that 4 Squadrons are intending to be acquired for AIR 6000, is to provide some chance that the RAAF will "over-match" any potential regional adversary. Despite what some analysts might say, our region is anything but benign in the strategic sense IMHO. A mere 2 squadrons would not even allow us to undertake the tasks we perform now, let alone "improve" our air combat capability, which is the primary intention of AIR 6000 afterall. Even 4 Squadrons is still a reduction on the 5 Squadrons the RAAF currently operates.



Network Centric warfare is not the panacea that many would have us believe. The ability to concentrate "mass" in warfare is every bit as relevant today as it has ever been.



As to our AWACS and new Tankers providing us with the ability to reduce our fighter numbers, well the intrisic value of these aircraft will require aircraft to protect them in all but the least intensity warfare. Can you honestly imagine the RAAF putting a Wedgetail in harms way without a dedicated fighter escort?



Plus, if you've only got 2 operational Squadrons, it's going to be impossible to deploy one of them, and if you do anyway, you're not going to be able to rotate it, should hostilities last more than a matter of weeks. Sustainability is a fundamental part of warfare and all the data fusion in the world is not going to make the slightest difference to this.



AS to the ANZAC's they are severly deficient in most warfare areas. The platform however is very well suited to most upgrades required to make them capable, it's the defence budget that's not suitable. The ANZAC undersurface and surface warfare upgrades in progress now (Harpoon Block II, Eurotorp MU-90 lightweight torpedo's, new towed sowed array etc) should have been part of the original equipment fit. The ANZACs AFAIK are at least as capable as our FFG's for ASW though, and the Collins class are pretty good...



You are quite right about the deficiencies present service wide. You only have to look at our impending deployment to Iraq, where 5/7 RAR (our ONLY mechanised battalion) has had to leave it's own vehicles behind and operate out of RECON vehicles simply because our APC's are obsolete and have been for 25 years and the Government WILL not fund an adequate replacement!!!



Anyway, I'm getting off topic, iIf you would like to message me your email addy, Daisy, I can email you Air Marshall Angus Houston's paper on the JSF if you like. He certainly likes the JSF, though his arguments are severely lacking in detail and don't necessarily stand up to criticism particularly well...

 

[daisy_cutter]

Well as it stands right now.... in terms of our own defence we don't have any air threats to deal with, and could probably get by with a squadron of F-111s or F/A-18s tasked to maritime strike. The only country close enough to have the potential to develop an air threat is Indonesia, and their plans have been pushed back due to the tragic and catastrophic Tsunami. With the billion dollar aid package and emergency medical and logistical support from the ADF, relations between the Indonesian and Australian governments are probably at their warmest since before the INTERFET operation. Obviously things could change, and obviously our capability plan would change should a threat begin to emerge.

Even 4 Squadrons is still a reduction on the 5 Squadrons the RAAF currently operates.

Yes but (based on a buy of 90-100 JSF) would have far higher availability, and when you compare the actual effect would be far more capable than what we have ever had.

Plus, if you've only got 2 operational Squadrons, it's going to be impossible to deploy one of them, and if you do anyway, you're not going to be able to rotate it, should hostilities last more than a matter of weeks.

Thats incorrect. An extra squadron costs money as well as providing rotation assets.

The platform however is very well suited to most upgrades required to make them capable, it's the defence budget that's not suitable. The ANZACs AFAIK are at least as capable as our FFG's for ASW though, and the Collins class are pretty good...

As a platform the Anzacs were designed as OPVs, and the platform does not have the qualities required for capable ASW, unlike for example the Type 23s. The Collins are great, but their limited mobility means that they are not going to make up for the lack of ASW in the skimmer fleet. Thats why I think that if the TNI-AU doesn't take sudden and disproportionate priority for the Indonesian government and have its capabilities rapidly upgraded, and short of regional states acquiring some Blackjacks or what have you, it would be vastly more valuable to take money out of Air6000 to spend on ASW in particular, and a myriad of other areas in Army.

P.S. - if AM Houston's paper on the JSF is as good as you say it is, I should have a look at it (although I think I may have read it) =p I'll send you my email on the message system.

 

[Aussie Digger]

The ANZAC's are limited and we have mr Beazley to thank for that, but the underwater and surface warfare upgrade program currently underway should bring them up to a reasonable standard in both these areas and make them at least as capable as any regional platform. It is in anti-air warfare that they are truly deficient and they won't be upgraded for that role...

As to the 2 squadron force structure your advocating, you're not secretly Paul Dibb are you? The problem that I see with only 2 squadrons is that it would not be possible for the RAAF to deploy a squadron size force of fighters on operations. any longer.

Deploying 1 entire Squadron would leave a mere Squadron to provide for the air defence of ALL of Australia. We have no credible surface to air missile system to provide ground based air defence of our Country and are soley reliant on our fighters. It is widely recognised that in an emergency even our current force structure would be insufficient to deploy sufficient fighters to cover our entire territory. Any reduction on this would leave us dangerously exposed...

The ability to rotate and sustain a force generally requires 3 quantities of the force you are attempting to deploy. If you have a squadron deployed and intend to replace it with a similar sized force, you have your next Squadron undergoing pre-deployment training. It is not ble to do this AND conduct normal DOA tasks, which is precisely the reason 3 Squadrons of Hornets were eventually acquired, when the Government initially only wanted to acquire 2.

When the Soviets invaded Afganistan the Government fully expected to have to deploy it's Hornets operationally. The RAAF convinced the Government that the only way to do that AND concurrently provide for the DOA was to adopt a 3 fighter squadron model...


Now I know we don't currently have a direct state on state threat against Australia, such as we expected during the "Cold War" however their is a "mini" arms race occuring within our region. China, India, Malaysia and Indonesia have all ordered Su-27/30 series fighters and Thailand and Singapore have recently ordered additional F-16 fighters and are looking to acquire new build 4th gen fighters. (I believe Thailand just last year signed a contract to acquire Gripen fighters).

Nearly all of these Countries will individually, should we adopt the 2 Squadron model you seem to prefer, possess greater air combat power than ourselves, particularly if we chose the JSF over other types such as the F-22... At least the F-22 with it's supercruise ability can almost double the sortie rate of exisiting fighters, the JSF won't possess any such capability however...

I understand your point about reducing the buy for AIR 6000, however, another way needs to be found to properly fund and address the glaring deficiencies in our Land and Naval forces. As the White Paper stated, air combat power is the single most important capability the ADF possesses and is critical to allowing all other ADF capaibilities to operate unhindered...

 

[daisy_cutter]

The problem that I see with only 2 squadrons is that it would not be possible for the RAAF to deploy a squadron size force of fighters on operations. any longer.

What you mean is deployed indefinately. I think thats a worthwhile compromise in order to make up for the severe deficiencies in other areas.

their is a "mini" arms race occuring within our region. China, India, Malaysia and Indonesia have all ordered Su-27/30 series fighters and Thailand and Singapore have recently ordered additional F-16 fighters and are looking to acquire new build 4th gen fighters. (I believe Thailand just last year signed a contract to acquire Gripen fighters).

The only country close enough to have the potential to develop an air threat is Indonesia, and their plans have been pushed back due to the tragic and catastrophic Tsunami. With the billion dollar aid package and emergency medical and logistical support from the ADF, relations between the Indonesian and Australian governments are probably at their warmest since before the INTERFET operation. Obviously things could change, and obviously our capability plan would change should a threat begin to emerge.

Lastly the Indonesian government doesn't seem to have been concerned about the superiority of Malaysian, Singaporean, and Australian air forces for a long time. They have other priorities, and are a long way from becoming a threat. If they did we could always develop a capability to counter that over and above two active squadrons.

 

[Aussie Digger]

I don't mean indefinitely, I mean a deployment that will last longer than 6 months. Just because there hasn't been one recently doesn't mean there won't be one in the future...

 

[daisy_cutter]

It is not a good idea to pay for the capability to provide for an unlikely deployment that is not fundamental to defending Australia's territorial integrity, when that money could be spent on capabilities that are very likely to be used.

 

[Aussie Digger]

It is not a good idea to pay for the capability to provide for an unlikely deployment that is not fundamental to defending Australia's territorial integrity, when that money could be spent on capabilities that are very likely to be used.

Guess you're not a fan of the new air to air refuellers then eh? Such a capability priced at around $2 Billion, will only have minimal usage in direct DOA operations. They will possess some utility by increasing our fighters CAP duration, but this capability is not critical to our ability to defend our Country, as the fighters can still operate without them, or surely we would have had a proper capability to refuel our fighters for a long time.

The B707's don't really count either. The purpose of acquiring them was to acquire a training A2A refuelling and limited operational capability. The new A330's are designed to slightly enhance that role. Not provide a high level capability...

Probably not a fan of F-111's either eh? The F-111 would have almost no direct involvement in any likely DOA operations, short of a massive conventional invasion, something no-one besides America has the capability to do. The F-111 is superb at flying long distances and bombing an enemy in his home. It doesn't have much use in the sort of limited air attack scenario that is likely to affect Australia should relations turn frigid with one of our neighbours...

I don't think it unlikely either that Australia will continue to deploy fighter Squadrons on operations. In fact now that our Hornets are being brought up to a decent level of capability, as compared to the rest of the world, I think it more likely that they would deploy. In fact the Secretary General of NATO was in Australia today discussing a possible future Australian deployment to Afganistan as part of ISAF. I could easily see a detachment, if not a Squadron of Hornets deploy in the not too distant future. They would fit in very nicely...

Anyway this argument is a bit silly. The Federal Government has already stated that it will seek to acquire up to 100 aircraft to replace it's current fleet. If the JSF is chosen, and regretably it seems increasingly likely that it will, the Government will acquire as many as it possibly can.

Some reports indicate as few as 70 will eventually be purchased due to cost increases in the flyaway price of the platform (even Dr Steven Gumley admitted this at Avalon 2 weeks ago, stating JSF's would now cost $100 million per plane)... 70 would still be sufficient to form 3 Squadrons, due to the slightly smaller Squadron sizes that would be operated if JSF or F-22 were to be chosen. Never have I seen that anything less than this is even being considered...

 

[daisy_cutter]

I can't explain it any more clearly: the need for prolonged deployment of fighter squadrons, is, to my mind, not as great as the needs in other parts of the ADF.

Anyway this argument is a bit silly. The Federal Government has already stated that it will seek to acquire up to 100 aircraft to replace it's current fleet. If the JSF is chosen, and regretably it seems increasingly likely that it will, the Government will acquire as many as it possibly can.

To be honest with you, our conversation is getting rather tiresome. I doubt government policy is to acquire as many JSF as possible within the budget. Use your common sense, they'll look at the costs and decide what represents a worthwhile investment. If they find other areas more deserving of funding..... fill in the blanks.

 

[Aussie Digger]

Ok, I've just one more point to add to your last comment. The budget for phase 1 of AIR 6000 is AU$12 billion. Senator HILL seemed fairly determined at Avalon as little as 2 weeks ago that the budget would remain at this level for AIR 6000 and AIR 6000 alone.

Of course they will look at everything involved including weapons, logistical support, training etc, but like anyone else the RAAF will be trying it's darndest to get as much bang for it's buck as possible, ie: as many platforms as it can fit in under that budget. Common sense, whether you agree with the idea or not should tell you that...

Anyway I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree then and end this particular discussion here.

 

[SirBedevere]

Apologies for restarting this, in a sense, but I was perplexed by the comment made previously of a regional Asia-Pacific power acquiring long-range strategic bombers. I believe the platform mentioned was the Blackjack, although reports of the Backfire being offered for sale have been filtering for a while now and seems far more likely a choice for the role. What particular countries would even consider operating such an aircraft and for what specific role? Apart from the PRC with its Harbin H-5s, to anyone's knowledge has any regional nation fielded a strategic bomber in the last fifty years? Endnote: I do realise this has practically no links whatsoever to the Air 6000 tender.

 

[Aussie Digger]

It does, but only in the Strategic sense that the ADF's new fighter will be required to "match up" to any such purchase. Intercepting high speed long range cruise missiles, which would likely be the primary armament of a Blackjakc bomber force is the role the JSF is least capable of performing. I've read reports that China and India have been considering acquiring the Blackjack bomber, but I doubt any other SE Asian nations could afford it...

 

[SirBedevere]

I am not up to date with the two countries' inventories, however, would supersonic antiship missiles be a more likely threat launched from any strike aircraft against strategic targets? Given that the PLAN has had these in use for many years for that purpose and cruise missiles are somewhat of a diplomatic burr-point for every nation closeby.

 

[Aussie Digger]

I would expect that most SU-30 series fighter operators would be seeking a standoff land/ship attack missile capability. The days of being able to overfly targets or flying close to them in order to drop ordance on them are ending IMHO. Air defences are simply becoming too potent...

 

[knightrider4]

I think to employ aircraft to dispose of cruise missiles is probably not the most efficient use of these assests especially when you have a small AF. Much better to leave the stand off weapons to the more sophisticated SAM systems such as the RBS23. Did I mention that the BAMSE system is quite a good..........!

 

[Aussie Digger]

Unfortunately Knightrider, most cruise missiles massively out-range SAM's, particularly the RBS-70 system which is the ONLY Ground based air defence system operated to be operated by the Australian Army or Air Force. This system is capable of point defence of a particular target, however we only currently possess 1x Battery (111 Bty 16 Air Defence Regt) of them (ie: about 18 systems).

We also currently possess 1x Rapier SAM Battery, (110 Bty 16 Air Defence Regt) however this system is less capable than RBS-70 and is to be phased out in the next couple of years in favour of additional RBS-70's. The requirement for a medium/long range air defence/anti-cruise missile capability was summarily dropped from the Defence Capability Plan in 2004, with no replacement program currently known...

In addition to which the RAN (until the Air Warfare Destroyer comes along in about 2013) only possesses a limited ability to provide long range air defence with it's FFG's/ SM-2 combination. Unfortunately due to limitations in the FFG's Radar and Fire control systems, the full capabilities of the SM-2 are unable to be exploited by the RAN.

As you can see, if we intend to provide ANY defence or resistance whatsoever to the threat of cruise missile attack, our air defence fighters become extremely important in this role. The choice of the JSF ovewr other potential types does not help this...

 

[Viggen]

Aussie Digger

You gave this statement in your first response to this topic:

If the JSF is chose and unfortunately it looks increasingly likely that it will....

I am wondering what option/s you would rather have as the Hornet and F-111 replacement other than the JSF?

Would you prefer F-15 or Typhoon or perhaps a mix including UCAVs?

Cheers

Viggen